Constraints on the richness–mass relation and the optical-SZE positional offset distribution for SZE-selected clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We cross-match galaxy cluster candidates selected via their Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect (SZE) signatures in 129.1 deg2 of the South Pole Telescope 2500d SPT-SZ survey with optically identified clusters selected from the Dark Energy Survey science verification data. We identify 25 clusters between 0.1 ≲ z ≲ 0.8 in the union of the SPT-SZ and redMaPPer (RM) samples. RM is an optical cluster finding algorithm that also returns a richness estimate for each cluster. We model the richness λ-mass relation with the following function 〈ln λ|M500〉 ∝ Bλln M500 + Cλln E(z) and use SPT-SZ cluster masses and RM richnesses λ to constrain the parameters. We find |$B_\lambda = 1.14^{+0.21}_{-0.18}$| and |$C_\lambda =0.73^{+0.77}_{-0.75}$|. The associated scatter in mass at fixed richness is |$\sigma _{\ln M|\lambda } = 0.18^{+0.08}_{-0.05}$| at a characteristic richness λ = 70. We demonstrate that our model provides an adequate description of the matched sample, showing that the fraction of SPT-SZ-selected clusters with RM counterparts is consistent with expectations and that the fraction of RM-selected clusters with SPT-SZ counterparts is in mild tension with expectation. We model the optical-SZE cluster positional offset distribution with the sum of two Gaussians, showing that it is consistent with a dominant, centrally peaked population and a subdominant population characterized by larger offsets. We also cross-match the RM catalogue with SPT-SZ candidates below the official catalogue threshold significance ξ = 4.5, using the RM catalogue to provide optical confirmation and redshifts for 15 additional clusters with ξ ∈ [4, 4.5].
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".